During a criminal trial where Emerly was found guilty, evidence was presented against her which Emerly and her lawyer feel was unfairly prejudicial. Emerly wants to appeal the court's decision. Which of the following is most likely true? 1.If an appeal court finds that the evidence against Emerly should have been excluded, she will receive a new trial in the Supreme Court. 2.Since Emerly was already found guilty, the appeals court will not make any decision in her favor, even if evidence against her was prejudicial. 3.If an appeals court finds that the evidence against Emerly should have been excluded, she can receive a new trial. 4.Since new evidence is not generally accepted in appeals courts, Emerly cannot make any claims about the biased nature of the evidence used against her.